LONNIE DAVID SMITH, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
A defendant is entitled to credit for all time served in county jail prior to sentencing, and the trial court must address exhibits supporting such a claim.
Appellant sought jail credit for time served prior to resentencing, providing exhibits of additional days served. The trial court denied the motion wi…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Credit For Jail Time Served cases and more on FLexlaw
Lonnie David Smith appeals from an order denying his motion filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a) seeking jail credit for time served in the county jail prior to resentencing. The trial court denied the motion based upon the conclusion that the appellant was only due the same amount of jail credit awarded in the original judgment and sentence. We reverse for further proceedings.
A court is required to give a defendant credit for all of the time served in county jail prior to sentencing. § 921.161, Fla. Stat. (1999). Further, “a prisoner is entitled to credit for jail time spent prior to re sentencing.” Kitchen v. State, 20 So.3d 975, 976 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009) (emphasis in original).
In the instant case, the appellant set out a facially sufficient rule 3.800(a) motion, with exhibits reflecting additional days that he served in the county jail prior to being resentenced in June 2009. In its denial, the trial court did not address these exhibits or attach records demonstrating that the appellant was entitled no relief.
Accordingly, we reverse the trial court’s order denying the appellant’s rule 3.800(a) motion. On remand, should the trial court again conclude that appellant’s rule 3.800(a) motion lacks merit, it shall attach to its order the portions of the record conclusively refuting that claim. Otherwise, it shall grant the relief requested.
REVERSED and REMANDED.
WOLF, DAVIS, and ROBERTS, JJ., concur.